Bob Vandehey - 21/Sep/04 10:46 PM My preference would be to create a new field called creator. This field would not be able to be changed and would always reflect who actually created the issue. This value is important to us because we have benchmark reports that show who created issues. While putting the creator in the change history is better then nothing, this makes it very harder to build queries. Mike Cannon-Brookes thought adding a creator field was a good idea.

Jeff Turner [Atlassian] - 21/Sep/04 11:49 PM Okay, well with the custom field system, it would be pretty easy to write a 'creator' custom field that exposes the info from the change history. We need to do almost exactly the same thing for JRA-4611

Martin Pichlo - 21/Sep/05 08:38 AM Hi Jeff, I would prefere Bob's suggestion. If we create a customfield of the type 'user piker' we couldn't select the realy "creater" as default value and furthermore anybody could change these value, too. Moreover it would be nice, if the field "creator" would be placed close by to assignee and reporter in the "Issue Details". But in my optinion the fieldname 'creator' sounds like the same as 'reporter'. So I suggested the following names: 1.) reporter (readonly) - the one who has realy created the issue. Actual it would be the field "reporter" before it was changeable. 2.) initiator - the one who as given the request to create an issue. maybe your boss or any customer who doesn't use jira. these field would be what the field reporter is at present. 3.) assignee....

Robert Dale - 09/Jul/08 06:36 AM Creator, as in Created By, makes perfect sense. In a business environment, particularly support/helpdesk function, the reporter is not the one who actualy creates the issue. The reporter is the one who reports it by calling or emailing about the problem. The creator is the one who actually creates the issue - usually the level 1 support/helpdesk person. JIRA fails badly here as far as auditing requirements go.